Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Have you met JoeG?

He thinks termites are intelligent.

You do not have a hypothesis. You have a statement of belief. Here, let me help. This is a correct hypothesis.

If organisms are intelligently designed, then we should see X when observing Y. However, if organisms were not intelligently designed, then we will not see X when observing Y.

What is X and Y Gary?

I note that this 'hypothesis' is the exact same 'hypothesis' as all of Intelligent Design uses and hasn't been updated. I'll also point out that this version of the 'hypothesis' has been around since mid 1987.

And, shockingly, no one has ever bothered to even try and test part of it.

Tell me, Gary, in two sentences, what would be a test for this hypothesis and why?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

YEC Gibberish.

You might think so but things at the molecular level happening at femtosecond speeds is one reason it's so hard to investigate. Solar system will not change much during our time though, due to scale difference.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Have you met JoeG?

He thinks termites are intelligent.

You do not have a hypothesis. You have a statement of belief. Here, let me help. This is a correct hypothesis.

If organisms are intelligently designed, then we should see X when observing Y. However, if organisms were not intelligently designed, then we will not see X when observing Y.

What is X and Y Gary?

I note that this 'hypothesis' is the exact same 'hypothesis' as all of Intelligent Design uses and hasn't been updated. I'll also point out that this version of the 'hypothesis' has been around since mid 1987.

And, shockingly, no one has ever bothered to even try and test part of it.

Tell me, Gary, in two sentences, what would be a test for this hypothesis and why?

Yes I do believe I read JoeG before. I have no problem with termites qualifying as intelligent, either.

And the theory/premise requires "intelligent cause" to be explained not "intelligently designed" therefore you're off on your own with a premise you fabricated not the one in question that I put in my signature line to help you get that one right.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

Why are you asking us? You won't even take responsibility for defining the terms you use?

No wonder no one takes you seriously.

And the title is "Theory of Intelligent Design" not "Theory of the Intelligent Designer" hence you are expecting a whole other theory, which is easier for you to argue has a religious deity in it than the one that the premise of the theory specifies. I'm setting a good example, but not getting muddled by it, then off chasing a red-herring.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

what is the difference between an "intelligent causer" and an "intelligent designer", in english, preferably?

To many, there is maybe no difference at all. But to a scientific theory that has to painstakingly operationally define absolutely everything it is a whole other theory. That one also seems more like something more for Creation Science to work on, so have fun with it there.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary: Many people, yes, have opinions about X. For some it is creation embodied and as such it's a religious issue. For others, perhaps, it's just science not restricted by any requirement to wear lab coats. I hope you enjoy finding out about X as you develop my theory for me in this environment suitable for development of creation theory even despite science lab coat wearing trolls.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

No no, not with fingers. Invisible, with magic, pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature!

I had an excellent idea how you can help us understand this. Instead of changing "Design" to "Designer" we will instead create a new supernatural deity by changing "Select/Selection" to "Selector". Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Does that sound like a highly scientific plan to you?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.

Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

I wrote a reply to this Gary, but on balance I think

"Fuck off IDiot" covers it better.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

I wrote a reply to this Gary, but on balance I think

"Fuck off IDiot" covers it better.

Just for that swearing at me again, I had to make sure to right away add that detail to the text of the theory. I then discovered it did not belong in any of the sections that were there. So I had to add a Conclusion section, starting it off with that, along with where that thought goes from there:

Quote

Conclusion

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.

You demanded a pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature Conclusion, now you have one, or at least a good start in that direction, all thanks to you. All in your clubhouse should be just as proud of your new status as having helped make the Theory of Intelligent Design even better, as I am, but I doubt they will.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

All in your clubhouse should be just as proud of your new status as having helped make the Theory of Intelligent Design even better, as I am, but I doubt they will.

Quote

n modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]

If you really have a "theory" then you are using the word in a way that nobody else understands.

You don't have a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, you have a computer program that only you know anything about.

Your "theory" is not consistent with the scientific method as it has neither been falsified nor verified.

And of course you have totally failed to describe your theory in a way that any scientist in the field would be in a position to understand.

So, whatever you want to call it you certainly don't have a "theory" do you?

You've got a timecube.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?

Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?

Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

Edited by The whole truth on Nov. 14 2012,04:38

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?

Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there. I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)

Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?

It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)

Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?

Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there. I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)

Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?

It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)

Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.

So, you're apparently saying that going any further than molecules, when asking what designed what, is suddenly religious. The line is molecules?

And you're apparently saying that "matter" and its "behavior" aren't intelligently designed by an "intelligent designer" and that there is no intelligence within matter or within the behavior of matter. Is that what you're saying?

To hopefully lessen confusion, will you provide definitions that you think apply to your use of the following terms:

matterbehaviormolecule

You said:

"It all depends on how you measure intelligence."

Well, I asked you because you're the one claiming that molecules and cells are intelligent and that organisms that contain molecules and cells are therefor intelligent, so you should be the one who can "measure intelligence" and apply that measurement and your "theory" to my questions. Can you and will you?

You also said:

"Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist."

You're just saying that "intelligence" is variable but that doesn't answer my questions.

More later.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

Well I found a Paper-City Magazine with House and Design feature and similar links:

It is so rare not even I know what it is yet. Thankfully, the theory helps keep it very simple. Best kept that way.

There is here a theory with a model that is fun to experiment with, that just so happens Creation Science can enjoy too. Nothing out of bounds of science about that, at all.

I earlier linked to the mandatory Everything Is Energy video to help conceptualize what the theory looks like where it ends up answering the cosmological big-questions. If what is in the video is what you call Creationism then witness how far Creationists have come since Dover.

More information on how the scientific method here works is in Wikipedia - Collective Intelligence especially about developing "The Golden Suggestion" that was here the one sentence premise for a theory all were invited to help figure out. It only makes sense that collective intelligence goes crazy with a golden suggestion like that here, because of your hating it real good. But the theory can take it.

To help get back on track a little, here is where what I said now stands in the theory which more or less etched it in stone. I could make a place for it in the Intro but at least should be somewhere in it:

Quote

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.

As you can see I am clearly wording what in context of theory can be said, so there is no confusion as to what you end up with for an answer. That's the way the science goes, nothing I can do about it, in the first place.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.